9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een issued to the appellant under the Customs Act, in respect of the past consignments. Therefore, the violations are not proved even in respect of the past consignments alleged to have been smuggled by the logistics company/so called dummy IEC holders. Appellant has shown laxity in not verifying the antecedents and functioning of his client at the declared address by using independent information. To this extent there has been a violation of Regulation 13 (o). Once the Commissioner accuses the appellant of abetment in smuggling, the appellant could have been charged under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. Having not been made a noticee in the show cause notice issued to the logistics company under the Customs Act for the offence of smuggling, we hold that the appellant do not deserve the most stringent punishment, that is permanent revocation of the CHA license. Appellant guilty of violating Regulations 13 (b) and 13 (o) and also guilty of not taking adequate care to check the antecedents of the IEC holder who signed the Authorisation letter. We hold that revocation of the license up to December 2015 would be adequate punishment for these violations of the CHAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any information imparted to a client; Regulation 13 (n) CHA to ensure that he discharges his duties as CHA with utmost speed and efficiency; Regulation 13 (o) CHA to verify antecedents of his client . 3. After completion of enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22, the Commissioner passed an order under Regulation 20 revoking the license of the appellant CHA and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. 4. Heard both sides and considered the submissions 5. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that even though the appellant had not retracted the statements taken at the time of investigations, during the enquiry proceedings it was clarified by the appellant and the logistics company that the license was not transferred by the CHA. The logistics company was referring all its clients to the appellant for undertaking the work of clearance of goods from customs. The appellant were charging M/s.Sea Speed on per container basis for the consignments cleared for them and there is no evidence that the payments were received from M/s Sea Speed for allowing them to use the CHA license. M/s Sea speed was merely providing a one-stop solution to client ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2274 CESTAT-Mum which held that a Commissioner is best placed to understand the importance of CHA in the customs area and the trust reposed in him by the Department. 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both sides 8. We find in this case that the CHA license was first placed under suspension vide order dated 08/04/2013. After a post decisional hearing, the suspension was continued vide order dated 23/04/2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 15/07/2013 set aside the suspension order and allowed the appeal giving liberty to the Commissioner to proceed with the matter under Regulation 22 of the CHALR. In compliance, the CHA license was restored vide notice dated 18/07/2013. The enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22 culminated in the impugned order against which the appellant are in appeal before us. 9. As regards the violation of Regulation 12, the thrust of the Commissioners findings is that the appellant had allowed M/s Sea speed to use the CHA license and receive payments on monthly basis by cheque. Further that violations of Regulations 12, 13 (a), 13 (o) is established by the confessional statements of Shri.Uday Khanna, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nessman would do. 11. Regarding Regulation 13 (b), the directors of both the appellant as well as the logistics company admitted that the work of customs clearance was looked after by employees of M/s Sea Speed. It was also admitted that the employees were on the payrolls of M/s Sea speed but were doing customs clearance work on the basis of customs passes got issued by the CHA for his company. The appellant have put up a weak defence in claiming that the employees were working under him. They have not been able to show any proof to the effect that the salaries of the employees undertaking customs clearance work were paid by them. Therefore, by not transacting business through approved employees, the appellant are guilty of violating Regulation 13 (b). 12. A significant factor for consideration in the present case is that no bill of entry had been filed by the appellant in respect of the consignment which was found to contain cigarettes. Therefore the violations of Regulation 13 (d), Regulation 13 (e) and Regulation 13 (n) is difficult to sustain. Even if we consider the violation of these regulations in the context of past consignments alleged to have been smuggled, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, the appellant could have been charged under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. Having not been made a noticee in the show cause notice issued to the logistics company under the Customs Act for the offence of smuggling, we hold that the appellant do not deserve the most stringent punishment, that is permanent revocation of the CHA license. 15. We have considered the judgements cited by the learned AR. In the case of Worldwide Cargo Movers (supra), the employee of the CHA was directly involved in misdeclaration in one case and abetment in the smuggling of a Mercedes car in another case. Here the facts are different because the CHA did not file a bill of entry in respect of the consignment which was seized. The CHA has also not been charged for abetment in the smuggling in the past cases. In the case of Dhakane (supra), it was established that the importer had never issued an authority letter in favour of the applicant. Therefore the facts are distinguishable. 16. In our discussion above we found the appellant guilty of violating Regulations 13 (b) and 13 (o) and also guilty of not taking adequate care to check the antecedents of the IEC holder who signed the Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
